House of Representatives
13 August 1903

1^st Parliament · 2^nd Session

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL
QUESTION
- KADINA POST-OFFICE
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION ACT
QUESTION
- AGENTS-GENERAL AND PREFERENTIAL TRADE
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
PAPER
QUESTION
- SOUTH AFRICAN TRADE
QUESTION
- REPORT OF GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING
QUESTION
- LETTER-CARRIERS’ OVERCOATS
ELECTORAL DIVISIONS : SOUTH AUSTRALIA
- Resolved
QUESTION
- ELECTORAL DIVISIONS : VICTORIA
ADJOURNMENT
- Order of Business

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Does the Prime Minister approve of what the AgentsGeneral are doing?

Sir EDMUND BARTON:

– It would be hard to say that I disapprove. I think that they are entitled to express their opinions, either for or against preferential trade. Although the Agents-General are temporarily residing in England, they are prominent citizens of the Commonwealth, and as such are entitled to express their opinions upon a subject like this. It must, of course, always be remembered that opinions so expressed have no official weight, and if such weight is given to them it is wrongly sogiven, because they in no sense represent the Commonwealth as an entity. But having regard to the fact that the expression of their opinions must be taken tobe purely the expression of their personal views, I do not think that there is any comment to make on their action.

page 3547

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Resolved (on motion by Mr. Reid) -

That leave of absence for one month be granted to the right honorable member for Tasmania, Sir Edward Braddon, on the ground of ill-health.

page 3547

PAPER

The Clerk:

– Assistant laid upon the table the following paper : -

Customs Prosecutions : Return to orders of the House, dated 12th and 20th June, 1903.

page 3547

QUESTION

SOUTH AFRICAN TRADE

Mr PHILLIPS:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

. Whether he is aware that the proposals of the South African Customs Union Convention, which have been adopted by the Natal, Rhodesia, Transvaal Colony, Orange River Colony, and Cape Colony Legislatures, come into operation on the loth instant?
As this Convention favours, to the extent of 25 per cent., any British colony which reciprocates, will hetake the necessary steps to reciprocate, so that the expanding trade of the Commonwealth with South Africa will not suffer?

Sir EDMUND BARTON:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

I believe that isso.
This question must be considered in its relation to the whole subject of reciprocal preferential trade, on which a statement of ministerial intentions will be made in due course.

page 3547

QUESTION

REPORT OF GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING

Mr MAUGER:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether his attention has been directed to the following paragraph in yesterday’s Argus, purporting to be a portion of the report of the General Officer Commanding: - “Major-General Sir Edward Hutton has come to one very interesting conclusion respecting Federal legislation. In a report recently prepared he says : - ‘ The development of the national instinct, and the increase of commercial prosperity, tend to show that Australia in the near future is destined to play a leading part in the Pacific. Itcan, moreover; hardly be supposed that Australians desire to repudiate their responsibilities as a portion of the British Empire in regard to co-operation for defence, more especially of their fellowcountrymen in New Zealand. It will not, I hope, be considered out of place to observe that recent Commonwealth legislation points distinctly to the establishment of the Monroe doctrine in Australasian waters, and to the enforcement of the principle that the future population of Australia is to consist only of certain defined races.’”
If he thinks the inferences contained therein are justifiable and should emanate from such a quarter?

Sir EDMUND BARTON:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

I have seen the paragraph mentioned.
The expressions may be considered somewhat questionable, but I do not think them sufficiently so to necessitate my pronouncing any specific censure on the General Officer Commanding.

page 3547

QUESTION

LETTER-CARRIERS’ OVERCOATS

Mr FOWLER:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the letter-carriers in Western Australia are not provided by the Government with overcoats ?
Do the letter-carriers in other States receive overcoats as part of their uniform ?
Will the Postmaster-General see that the letter-carriers of Western Australia are at once placed on an equality with those of other States in this respect?

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Free Trade

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

The letter-carriers in Western Australia have notyet been provided with overcoats by the Government, but action was taken some time since with a view to placing all letter-carriers in the Commonwealth on the same footing in this respect.
Inquiry is proceeding as to the practice in all the States as to providing overcoats or waterproofs for the letter-carriers.
The Postmaster-General on the conclusion of the inquiry will see that as far as possible all letter-carriers are placed on an equality in the matter of waterproofs or overcoats.

page 3547

ELECTORAL DIVISIONS : SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist

– I move -

That this House approves of the proposed distribution of the State of South Australia into seven divisions, named Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Angas, Barker, Chamberlain, East Torrens, and Flinders, and shown on the maps laid upon the table of the House of Representatives on the 7th July last.

I intend to ask the House to deal with the proposed distribution of the States into electoral divisions in the order in which the subject has been reported upon by the Commissioners for the States, and their reports laid upon the table of the House. The first proposed distribution to be completed and laid before honorable members was that of the State of South Australia. It will be remembered that when this Parliament was elected, the States of South Australia and Tasmania were not divided into electoral divisions, and, therefore, are now in a somewhat different position from the remaining States. Personally I do not know much of the divisions proposed for South Australia, but I have made all the inquiries I possibly could, and I have had before me, of course, the Commissioner’s report. He has named the various electorates, and I am informed that there is some desire to alter the names, or some of them. I do not suppose that there will be any great objection to any amendments which may be suggested by representatives of South Australia who may strongly desire an alteration in the case of any particular electorate. I think I arn expressing the opinion of those who are acquainted, with the proposed divisions when I say that there is no serious objection to be taken to them. The number of the electors in each electorate is as follows : - In the electorate of Adelaide 23,518, Port Adelaide 23,563, East Torrens 26,727, Barker 21,791, Angas 23,593, Chamberlain 23,761, and Flinders 22,235. In the case of EastTorrens and Chamberlain there is a certain number above the quota. In East Torrens the number is 3,129, and in Chamberlain 163. The number in Adelaide is 80 below the quota ; in Port Adelaide, 35 ; Barker, 1,807 ; Angas, 5; and Flinders, 1,363. As I have explained there does not seem to be much objection taken to the provisions proposed, and I have, therefore, to move that they be accepted. This action is taken under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Commissioners were appointed under the provisions of that statute. At the time the Bill was first introduced it was proposed that there should be three Commissioners, but objection was raised to that proposal in this House, and ultimately a compromise, as it may, perhaps, be called, was agreed to, and it was decided to have one Commissioner instead of three. I personally, and I think the Ministry as a whole, were in favour of having three Commissioners, but, strong objections having been raised to the proposal, it was decided that one Commissioner only should be appointed for each State. The officer in South Australia was Commissioner Boothby, a gentleman who, so far as I can ascertain, held the confidence of all the representatives of that State, and I think also of its people. Of course I obtained my information concerning him through the representatives of the State. I regret to say that that gentleman has died since he completed hia task. I think we may all regret the fact, and I have already paid a tribute to his memory so far as I could, because I ascertained that he was a man highly respected by every one, and that that is why his appointment gavesuch universal satisfaction. The Commissioner in each State was called upon to carry out the provisions of sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. It will be noticed that under these sections it was necessary, after making the divisions, that thirty days’ notice should be given with a view to objections being raised. If, at the expiration of that time, any objections were raised sufficiently serious to require an alteration of the divisions proposed, the Commissioner would have an opportunity of altering them. In the case of South Australia, no alteration was proposed up to the end of thethirty days. It will be found that section 21 of the Act says -

If both Houses of Parliament pass a resolution approving of any proposed distribution, the Governor-General may by proclamation declare the names and boundaries of the divisions, and such divisions shall, until altered, be the Federal divisions for the State in which they are situated.

If either House of the Parliament passesa resolution disapproving of any proposed distribution, or negatives a motion for the approval of any proposed distribution, the Minister may direct the Commissioner to propose a fresh distribution of the State into divisions. The proceedings are, I think, entirely in the hands of the Government after the matter is dealt with by the House. I do not think there is any necessity to speak at greater length upon this motion.

Mr REID:
East Sydney

– I have much pleasure in supporting the motion of the Minister for Trade and Customs.

Mr Batchelor:

– The right honorable gentleman might wait until he hears the views of representatives from South Australia.

Mr REID:

Mr Reid:

– How can the honorable member tell that the electors voted one way or the other?. Would it not be possible for the labour votes to be given to other than labour candidates ?

Sir William Lyne:

- Mr. Schomburg lias been gazetted as the new Commissioner.

Mr GLYNN:

– I am very glad to hear it, because he was of great assistance to the late Commissioner. No distribution can be suggested to which objection cannot be taken, and I think that that now before us is a very fair one. During the 30 days that the proposal was exposed for public criticism no objection was sent in, and so far as I can ascertain, the distribution gives general satisfaction in South Australia. I agree with the suggestion of the honorable member for South Australia that some of the names Attached to the divisions should be altered. I think we should give recognition chiefly to names which are deserving from the point of view of local patriotism. Why Mr. Chamberlain’s name’ was chosen for one division I do not know ; but I think it an admirable suggestion of the honorable, member for Robertson that Mr. Boothby’s. name be substituted. There may, however, be some difficulty in altering the proposed, names, because under section 19 of the Act-, the maps which must be presented to Par- liament must show the names and boundariesof the proposed divisions. In my opinion, Parliament has no power to alter the-, names.

Sir William Lyne:

– I am advised thatthe names can be altered.

Mr GLYNN:

– I should be glad to hearwhat reasons the Minister can urge against-, what appears to be the express conditions, of the section -

The number of electors residing in each proposed division together with a map signed by him. showing the names and boundaries of- each proposed division.

We cannot alter the boundaries, and I seenothing in the text to show that we can alter the names.

Mr Crouch:

– If the honorable and learned member will look at section 21 hewill find that both Houses have to approveof the proposed distribution.

Mr GLYNN:

– That is so, but the word “distribution “ covers both names and boundaries. This is merely a specification of the method of distribution. “Distribution”” is the generic term used to comprehendboth.

Sir William Lyne:

– But a name is not-, a distribution.

Mr GLYNN:

– ‘’ Distribution “ is used to cover both boundaries and names. I do-, not think that section 21 helps the honorable gentleman, because it says -

If both Houses of Parliament pass a resolution approving of any proposed distribution, theGovernorGeneral may, by proclamation, declare the names and boundaries o£ the divisions - not as fixed by the House, but as suggested by the Commissioner. I hope thata way will be found out of the difficulty, because personally I should like to see thenames altered.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– I do not quite agree with the honorable member in another matter. I think that Brighton, Glenelg, and a portion of Sturt should have been left in the same district. If those two alterations were made I do not think there would be very much difference in voting power from a party Stand-point. I am sure that it cannot be satisfactory to the people of Glenelg that they should be tacked on to the electorate of Barker. It would be equally unsatisfactory to the people of Glenelg, and of a portion of Sturt, if they were tacked on to Port Adelaide, because they would be virtually disfranchised, their numbers not being nearly sufficient to produce any effect upon the enormous labour vote of Port Adelaide itself. We need not go into the question as to whether the division favours the .democratic or conservative vote, but I do not think that much difference is caused by cUtting off one slice of the electorate and putting on another. In my opinion the division proposed is not a satisfactory one, and I am, therefore, prepared to vote for the amendment. I indorse what was said a moment ago by the honorable and learned member for South Australia, Mr. Glynn. I should like to know why the proposed division of South Australia should be selected by the Government for approval, and at the same time it is suggested that’ the divisions proposed for the other States j-shall be disapproved of.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must ask the honorable member not to refer to those divisions.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– This question was referred to before, or I should not have alluded, to it. Though I do not believe any great amount of wrong has been done to either one side or the other in politics by the proposed division, I shall support the amendment disapproving of it. I should prefer to see the whole State polled as one division, as was the case before, than that there should be a division of districts which does not give satisfaction to all sections of the community.

Mr. REID (East Sydney). - I only wish to refer to a very small matter in connexion with the names of the proposed divisions. There is no doubt that it will be very awkward if we have two honorable members for Flinders in this House. At the same time, I do not think that any alteration could be made by the Governor-General in Council if we approved of the distribution without suggesting an alteration of the names. If we suggest an alteration of the names, I do not question the power of the Governor-General to give effect to our wishes.

Sir William Lyne:

– That is what we propose.

Mr REID:

Amendment negatived.

Mr POYNTON:
South Australia

– If it be possible to alter the names of certain divisions without necessitating the return of the distribution to the Commissioner, I should like to move one or two amendments. I understand that there is some difficulty in the way which the Minister will, perhaps, explain. I desire, for example, that the Flinders division shall be named “Grey,” after Sir George Grey. As honorable members are aware, there is already a Federal electorate of “ Flinders” in Victoria.

Sir William Lyne:

– It would be better to deal with the electorates in their proper order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If any honorable member has a prior amendment to move, he should do so now.

Mr Deakin:

– There is, for example, the Port Adelaide division. That is the name of a State electorate.

Mr POYNTON:

– I understand that nearly every other honorable member for South Australia has spoken on this question, and therefore cannot move any amendments in this direction. My difficulty is that I do not know the changes which some of them desire in the names of the various electorates.

Mr Deakin:

– It is open to any honorable member to move an amendment on their behalf.

Amendments (by Mr. Harper) agreed to- . .

That the motion be amended by the omission of the words “Port Adelaide,” with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “Hindmarsh “ ; and by the omission of the word “Chamberlain,” with a view to insert in. Heu thereof the word “ Wakefield.”

Amendment (by Mr. Deakin) agreed to-

That the motion be amended by the omission of the words “East Torrens,” with a view to the insertion of the word “ Boothby.”

Amendment (by Mr. Wilks) agreed to - -

That the motion be amended by the omission of the word “Flinders,” with a view to insert in lien thereof the word “Grey.”

Mr. KINGSTON (South Australia). - I wish to know if the Government are perfectly satisfied with this alteration of the names of divisions ? Are they of opinion that it is an approval within the terms of the Act when what is proposed by the Commissioner is not approved in its entirety by the House ? I have a strong notion, though I may be altogether wrong, that if both Houses of Parliament pass resolutions approving of any suggested distribution - which, undoubtedly, to my mind, includes the names as well as the boundaries contained in the Commissioner’s report and the attached maps signed by him - something may be done. But can it be said that both Houses have approved of a distribution if the House of Representatives’ rejects some of the names of the divisions recommended by the Commissioner, and substitutes othernames t

Mr DEAKIN:
AttorneyGeneral · Ballarat · Protectionist

– There is no express authority for the alteration by this House of either names or boundaries ; but whereas an alteration of the boundaries of the division’s would be an alteration of substance, the alteration of names is not. In my opinion, the Act is not so severely worded as to prevent us from making immaterial alterations, and no court would say that the alteration of names is material.

Question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

Resolved

That this House approves of the proposed distribution of the State of South Australia into seven Divisions, named Adelaide, Hindmarsh, Angas, .Barker, Wakefield, Boothby, and Grey, and shown on the maps laid upon the table of the House of Representatives on the 7th July’ last.

page 3560

QUESTION

ELECTORAL DIVISIONS : VICTORIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist

– I move -

That this House disapproves of the proposed distribution of the State of Victoria into 23 divisions, named Balaclava, Ballaarat, Bendigo, Bourke, Corangamite, Corinella; Coria, Flemington, Flinders, Gippsland, Grampians, Indi, Jika, Kooyong, Laanecoorie, Melbourne, Melbourne Ports, Mernda, Moira, Toorak, Wannon, Wimmera, Yarra, and shown on the mapa laid upon, the table of the House of Representatives on the 21st July last.

I have placed this motion second on the list because, as I have already explained, the proposed distribution of Victoria was. the second to be reported upon by the Commissioner. I ask the House to disapprove of the distribution for several reasons. One reason, to which I shall make further reference presently, is the prevalence of a series of disastrously dry seasons, which has driven the population of Victoria and other States towards the coast.

Mr Conroy:

– Nevertheless there seems to be a very large allowance for country representation.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I do not think the allowance is large. The population now residing on the eastern coast of Australia cannot be considered a normal population, and that fact will appear more clearly when I come to deal with the proposed distribution of New South Wales. The Commissioner in reporting upon the written objections to hisdistribution which have been received by him enumerated them in this way -

That the statistics as to the number of electors residing in the country are unreliable.

That owing to the drought numbers of electors, from country districts have moved, probably only temporarily, to the metropolitan centres.

That a very large proportion of the persons entitled, who have been accidentally omitted from’ the returns, are country residents, and that the number so omitted is almost great enough to form a quota for a division.

That the country has been unfairly treated, because the Commissioner has not taken sufficient advantage of the margin allowed above and below the quota.

That the proposed readjustment of boundaries is inequitable and unjust, inasmuch as the country districts will lose one representative, which must prove detrimental to rural industries and its legislative needs.

That community of interest has been ignored.

He practically ignored those objections, but every one who has lived in the country districts of Victoria knows that there is a great deal of truth in .the statement that there has been a very large exodus from the dry parts of the State to the coast, and if the proposed distribution were approved of by the House, we should find, twelve months hence, that we. had given a larger representation to the metropolitan districts than is given under the present arrangement.

– No, I cannot.

– I rise to support the motion, and I may say at once that, so far as I am personally concerned, the proposed divisions would suit me remarkably well. They would leave me all my present electors, and the territory which it is proposed to add to my electorate happens to include the district where I went to school, and where . I have a large number of friends. Therefore, from my own personal stand-point, I could not find any fault with the proposed distribution. But I think it is our duty to view this matter from a broader stand-point than that of our personal interest or convenience. I thoroughly agree with what the Minister for Trade and Customs has said in regard to the effect of the recent drought. When the question of the apportionment of electors, as between town and country, was under consideration, I did all that I possibly could to secure a margin of one-fourth, either above or below. But, having been defeated upon that question, I do not desire to raise it again. We have a certain law upon the statute-book, and I have no wish to dis regard its provisions. At the same time I think all fair-minded persons will admit that we ought net to take advantage of a time when the country districts are partially denuded of population, as the result ofone of the most disastrous droughts ever experienced in Australia, to deprive those districts of their fair share of political representation. I am sure that our city friends would be the last to take advantage of any temporary displacement of population for that purpose. When the present division of electorates in this State was submitted to the Victorian Parliament by myself, the present Treasurer, although he is a city member, moved that it be disagreed with upon the ground that it gave too much representation to the city. In common fairness, I had to admit that it did. The reason which he assigned for his objection was that a majority of the members composing the Government, of which I was the head, were country representatives, and were afraid of being accused of unduly favouring rural constituencies. A considerable majority of the Victorian Assembly supported the amendment to deprive the city of a member, and to add that measure of representation to the country. But it was found that if that course were adopted, the balance of representation would be rather the other way. The House, therefore, accepted the subdivision as originally proposed, although a majority of honorable members considered that the city had been somewhat unduly favoured. We can well imaginewhat would be the effect of depriving the country districts of still another representative, and of giving that measure of increased representation to the city. I have no desire to raise the question of town versus country. Their interests should be identical; but the knowledge and experience of their residents are not identical. The city man is conversant with city interests and the country resident with country interests. Let me refer to the proposed boundaries of the electorate which I represent, as they are shown upon the map. Honorable members will be able to judge of its size when I tell them that it includes the north-eastern angle of the State and also its extreme southern points

It embraces an area which extends from Cape Howe to Wilson’s Promontory. They will also appreciate its diversity of interests, seeing that some portions of it comprise large mining districts and other portions dairying and grazing districts. These considerations are somewhat beside, the question, because we are not now discussing what should be the proportion of representation as between town and country. What I wish to emphasize is that we should take no advantage of a temporary displacement of population - because we have every reason to believe that it is temporary - to deprive the country districts of a member, and to give an additional member to city constituencies. I admit that the district represented by tha honorable member for Yarra is densely populated ; but I would point out that he can mount his bicycle and visit all his electors in the course of a day. Their interests are identical.

Mr Tudor:

– The Melbourne electorate contains 12,000 less voters than does my own.

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– The total number of electors in the metropolitan districts is quite as’ large as it should be, apart from the temporary exodus of population from the country to the city. Although the electorate which the honorable member represents is densely populated, the district of Melbourne - the city constituency of Victoria - possesses only a small population. The metropolitan districts, therefore, speaking of them as a whole, possess their full share of representation. Their interests cannot suffer. But the interests of the country will suffer greatly if we deprive it of a member on account of a temporary exodus of population, because a long time might elapse before the representation which it loses would be restored to it. I merely desire to do what is fair. If I were studying my own personal interests, I could not wish to contest any district better than that which the Commissioner has recommended, because the electors of it from end to end are friendly disposed towards me. I hope, however, that upon a large matter of this kind, and one which affects the interests of the whole people, we shall rise superior to selfish considerations. It has been said, “ Why should we approve of the South Australian divisions, and disapprove of the Victorian ? “ The cases are not at all analogous. Hitherto South Australia has not been divided into Federal electorates for the ‘ return of representatives to this House. On the other hand, Victoria has been divided - and fairly divided - if we leave oat of consideration the temporary displacement of population that has taken place. It is not necessary for me to labour this matter further. I have no desire to refer to boundaries. I rely upon the innate sense of justice of honorable members. I ask them to do what is right upon the broad principle at issue, which in itself is sufficient to justify the motion for the rejection of these divisions.

Mr REID:
East Sydney

– Upon several occasions during the history of this Parliament, honorable members upon this side of the Chamber have sunk party feelings and interests. We did so upon the question of the Naval Agreement, and I suppose that if there ever was a matter from the consideration of which party feeling should be eliminated, it is one of this sort, which is infinitely more vital, and which touches much more closely the political morality as well as the political justice of this Parliament. I hope, therefore, that in dealing with it we shall endeavour to absolutely eliminate from our treatment of it any element of party attack or party recrimination. The subject is altogether above any indulgence in tactics of the kind, and I trust that any remarks which I may make will not be disfigured by the introduction of false issues. I shall even abstain - tempted though I am - from making any references to the appeal which honorable members upon this side of the House made on- behalf of the country during the continuance of the disastrous drought which Australia has recently experienced. That would introduce a discordant note, and we shall have other opportunities for dealing with those matters. At the present moment, we are dealing with a” most vital question, and one which, I suppose, involves our duty, to the people of Australia more closely than does any question which has been dealt with by this Parliament. The honorable member for Gippsland very correctly stated that on this occasion we cannot endeavour to alter the laws of the country in reference to the suffrage. He very fairly made that admission. What is the law of this country in reference to the suffrage 1 What is the plank, which is not only a vital plank in the platform of the labour party, but in that; of every party throughout the State 1 It is that as nearly as possible each individual shall have an equal share in the political Government of the Commonwealth - -not because he lives in one part of a State or in another part, and not because he is conversant with country affairs or with city affairs. If we enter into those refinements, we shall stab to the very heart the principle of manhood or womanhood suffrage. That was the old tory basis ofopposition to manhood suffrage. The argument was - “ How can these ignorant people, who have no stake in the country, possess sufficient knowledge or discrimination to choose Members of Parliament”? Upon this occasion, however, that sort of discrimination between one man in the city and another man in the country is being resurrected. What, I would ask, is the position of the man who is resident half-way between the town and the country, and who does not belong to either? I suppose that he represents another shade of entity, to which we should attach some further consideration.

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– I thought that the right honorable and learned member agreed that we should allow the law to remain as it stands.

Mr.REID. - The present law is that, as closely as possible, each man shall have an equal share in returning members to this Parliament, and that each woman shall exercise a similar right, al though one woman may have the genius of the Minister for Trade and Customs, and another be absolutely unversed in political affairs. We have deliberately based our suffrage upon the prin ciple of humanity. We have designedly discarded all suggestions in favour of any other basis. Now, what does this proposal mean ? It means - and I am speaking very earnestly upon this matter, because I feel strongly upon it, though I have no desire to use exaggerated language - that whilst the broad basic principle of our Constitution is the equality of every man and every woman as a voting power in the political arena, the basis of the action of the Government is to deny that principle, and to establish a difference between various persons in the Commonwealth, according to the localities in which they reside. That is absolutely at variance with the basic principle of representation in this Parliament, and I take the earliest opportunity of inviting the attention of honorable members to the manner in which it will work out. The Minister for Trade and

Customs has deliberately told us what the Ministerial proposal means. It does not mean that the Government propose to return the distribution to this highly trusted officer. Do not let us forget that the selection of the Commissioner by the Government was, we supposed - and we stillhave a right to believe - a proper one. We have a light to believe that a competent man was chosen to do the work. On the statement of the Minister, however, the Government did not choose the right man, or, at all events, if they did, his work is such that they cannot accept it.

Sir William Lyne:

– We cannot accept it, not because of the man, but because of the season.

Mr.REID. - We are to adjust political power and rights and to arrange the distribution of electors of Australia according to season. When we have a good season we are to hoye a redistribution. We are to have a series of political adjustments for a time of drought, and another series of political adjustments for a time of goodseasons. If that be so, we should have a special redistribution for Melbourne Cup week, because on that occasion there is an absolute displacement of the population. Do not honorable members see that the necessity for giving every fair consideration to the difficulty which we all admit that people living in country districts experience in exercising the franchise as freely and conveniently as do the residents of large centres of population is provided for in the elastic margin which enables the Commissioner to make a difference of 10,000 in the number of voters in town and country electorates ? The law of the land has given those who redistribute our electoral boundaries a right to disregard the principles of manhood and womanhood suffrage to an extent which, in this particular case, enables the Commissioner in framing a division to go 5,000 below or 5,000 above the quota. He has power to deal with all the difficult positions which may be worthy of consideration. The margin which he is allowed is so great, for instance, that in a city division, the number of electors returning one member may happen to be 10,000 more than the number returning a member to represent a country constituency. Surely that provision shouldbe sufficient to meet allthese emergencies ? Do honorable members desire any more serious departure from the principle of equality than the power vested in the Commissioner to make a difference of 10,000 votes between a city and a country electorate ? If that power does not satisfy honorable members, we had better abolish altogether the principle of manhood and womanhood suffrage. Is it not remarkable that, judging by his speech, the Minister appears to be oblivious of .the fact that, since the last general elections, the women of Victoria have been granted the franchise? Judging by his speech he is oblivious of the fact that by one stroke of our legislation we have added to the electoral rolls of Victoria a larger number of persons - in the shape of the women of the State - than previously existed upon the roll of male electors. Is is not marvellous that in dealing with the position’ created by what most of us consider to be a grand new departure, which has converted the number of electors of Victoria from 300,000 to 600,000, the Minister has not made any reference whatever to that revolution of the political system of the State ? I have before me the figures published ‘in part of the Statistical Register qf Victoria for 1901 showing the number of men and women over the age of 21 years then residing in this State. The return shows that whereas there were at that time 307,000 males above the age of 21 years in Victoria, there were 317,000 females above that age. Therefore, the electors of Victoria in point of voting power - which is supposed to be equal, so far as individuals are concerned - have been raised, by one stroke of policy, from 300,000 to 600,000. But not one word has fallen from the Minister in regard to the way in which that change affects his scheme, or how it works out. The- Minister may have thought fit to refer very briefly to this matter, but we must very seriously consider it. The honorable member for Gippsland, and trie Minister for Trade and Customs do not wish to raise the question of town and country. They do not desire to do so, because they wish to submerge the towns. It is easy to fracture the main principle of the Constitution in the interests, as it is thought, of certain persons in one part of the State and then to say, “ Oh, do not let us raise this question of town and ‘country.” The question is raised by those who seek to depart from the general principle of the Constitution, by making a difference between the voter who lives in a town and the voter who resides in a country district. They are the people who raise this question. The broad catholic basis of our suffrage does, not regard the status of men or women in the world. It pays no regard to what their wealth or their poverty may be, or to whatmay be the extent of their education. All these things have been brushed aside in order that every human being above, the age of 21 shall have the same right that the biggest and best man has, so far as the ballot-box is -concerned. That question hasbeen settled long ago. If the Minister could have discovered any injustice, or any invasion of the principles of the Constitution in this distribution, it would be a wholly different’ matter. But what is the principle ? The Minister says that he basal ways held the opinion that the votingpower in the hands of the people” in thecountry districts should be one - fourth greater than that of- the city electors. In other words there is to be 25 per cent., more voting power in the country electorates, than there is in the city divisions. We arelegislating in a number of democratic directions which some people consider to be daring experiments, but I think that the mostaudacious experiment of all would be tosolemnly confer political rights upon individuals, and then by side methods to deprivethem of those rights. In such circumstances, what is the use of standing up and pointingto Australia, as our great men do, as the one place in the British Empire where theequality of the manhood and womanhood of the country has been fearlessly affirmed.. If that is the principle of our Constitution, there is a personal right, possessed by every man and woman in Australia. It is his right, and her right, under our Constitution. .We talk of establishing a High. Court* and of appointing a High Commissioner, but is it not of infinitely greater importance that we shall not deprive the people of their politicalrights ? Is it not of supreme importancethat we should not revert under cover of a wretched question of this kind to the old tory distinctions of bygone times?’ I wish to point out that in my judgment the Commissioner has already gonetoo far in discriminating between the voterin the country district and the- voter in the town. In support of that view, I shall read certain figures which areembodied in his report. What do they show ? They show that the Commissioner- in planning out and distributing the voting power as between town and country, has gone so far in the direction desired by the honorable member for Gippsland that he has given the country districts an advantage of 48,000 votes. I shall give honorable members the exact figures which appear in the report. The nine city electorates have 24,210 electors above the quota while the fourteen country electorates have 24,612 votes below the quota. Adding the two together we find that there is a difference of ‘almost 49,000 votes in favour of the country electorates. If we divide that number by fourteen - the number of .country electorates - we get on the average a difference of over 3,000 votes in favour of each country electorate as against the city electorates of Victoria. How far are we going to push this departure from the principle of manhood suffrage ? If there are to be 3,000 more votes in every country electorate than there are in every city electorate, why should we not make the difference 6,000 ? On what principle can we proceed the moment we depart from the broad principle of the Constitution? One would have thought that the Commissioner had mapped out the electorates upon the mere basis of equality, and, obtaining a uniform quota, had acted accordingly. But he has gone so far in the direction of conserving the interests of the country that he has ^adopted two different quotas. In dealing with the city electorates he has proceeded on a quota” different from that adopted by him in mapping out the country electorates. He says in his report that -

The number of electors in the proposed fourteen (14) country and nine (9) city divisions is, therefore, 332,395 and 253,709 respectively, the average number of electors in each country division (including Ballarat, Bendigo, and Corio), being 23,742, and in each city division 28,190.

– There may be well-founded objections to a proposed distribution : surely that phrase will not be regarded as imputing political impropriety ? Some honorable members who do not know me so well as do the representatives of New South Wales are rather ungenerous at times. I do not like to be accused of attributing motives when I am not doing so, and it is mean and contemptible to try to place me in a false position. I assume that no one wishesfor the personal interference of politicians in the administration of the Electoral Act. There may be well-founded objections to a particular scheme of distribution, but it must always be considered by Parliament whether those objections are so weighty, and sufficiently affect the merits of the scheme, as to j ustify our disapproval of it. If the proposed distribution now before us is objectionable, why should it not be referred to the Commissioner? What a humiliation it will be if we have to submit ourselves for re-election under the scheme of electorates provided by the States Parliaments three years ago !

Mr.F. E. McLean. - When another franchise existed.

Mr REID:

– Yes. The provision made by the Parliaments of the States were made before the Commonwealth Parliament had come into existence. Now, too, hundreds of thousands of women have been given the franchise. Will it not therefore be a most humiliating confession of legislative and executive incapacity if we admit that we cannot carry out a scheme of our own for the exercise of the political power of the Commonwealth, and must fall back on the States schemes. I have very serious doubt, indeed, whether, if a scheme of distribution is not adopted, we can fall back on the divisions provided by the Parliaments of the States, and I remind honorable members that these legal points, although they may not recommend themselves to the consideration of the House, sometimes prove perfectly good before a court of law. It is, therefore, a matter for serious consideration whether we can, as proposed by the Minister for Trade and Customs, allow things to drift, and hold the next elections under the laws of the States.

Sir William Lyne:

– The next elections will be conducted under our own Electoral Act.

Mr REID:

– There is no provision for the conduct of elections in any State under that Act until a scheme of distribution has been submitted by the Commissioner, and approved by both Houses of Parl iament. My remarks would be very mild indeed if the Government proposed to refer this distribution to the Commissioner for a further report. But the Minister distinctly stated, in reply to a question put by me, that there was no intention of doing that. We might have provided, when dealing with the Electoral Bill, that Parliament should have the right to amend any proposed distribution, but it was distinctly, and I think wisely, determined that, whilst we reserved to ourselves the right to disapprove of any proposed scheme, we would repudiate the idea of interfering in the arrangement of the boundaries of electoral divisions. Therefore the Government have no power to deal with this matter, except by referring it to the Commissioner. There are some who think that if suggested distributions are not approved by Parliament, the State Acts passed prior to federation will come into force. But it is worth while to note the provisions of the Constitution on that point. If’ the State Acts will not come into force, the States - and the alternative is one to which personally I do not object - must vote as single electorates. But such an arrangement would do more to deprive the electors in country districts of representation than is done by the proposed scheme of distribution, which, as I have pointed out, gives the country electorates the benefit of a larger representation, to the extent of 50,000 votes, than is given to the metropolitan electorates. Section 29 of the Constitution provides that -

Until the Parliament of the Commonwealth otherwise provides, the Parliament of any State may make laws for determining the divisions in each State for which members of the House of Representatives may be chosen, and the number to be chosen for each division. .

It was necessary to pass that provision to make arrangements for the first election of members to serve in the Parliament of the Commonwealth. But now that we have passed an Electoral Act, and laid down a certain procedure defining the boundaries of divisions, the question arises whether the States Acts still hold good. The section continues -

In the absence of other provision, each State shall be one electorate.

– The right honorable i member does not admit that disaster will drive away population.

Mr REID:

– I do, but I hold that when population is driven away from one locality we are able to trace it. May I suggest to my honorable friend that all ‘ these statements about the removal of population will attend every proposal for dividing the population for electoral purposes to the end of the world. When the cry of the drought is not raised something else will be. I have never yet seen a scheme of electoral boundaries which did not meet with disapproval. The question involved here is whether we shall practically take the political power out of our own hands and return it to the State Parliament of three years ago. Is the redistribution scheme which is recommended so bad that we must humiliate ourselves before the electors by admitting that we have not been able to carry out the provisions of our own Act, which gives us power to refer the scheme back to a non-political authority should it not meet with our approval 1 The Act says -

If either House of Parliament passes a resolution disapproving of any proposed distribution, or negatives a motion for the approval of any proposed distribution, the Minister may direct the Commissioner to propose a fresh distribution of the State into divisions,

If the Minister in charge of this matter, being dissatisfied with the proposed boundaries, carried out the provisions of our own law and asked the House to send them ‘ back to the Commissioner with an instruction to make a larger difference between people living in one part of Victoria and those resident in another, would they take the responsibility of a straight vote upon that question ? That would raise a clear issue before the people of Australia. Here is a margin of 50,000 in the people of one State,’ and honorable members who fought for equality of representation wish to increase it to 100,000. I should like to know the honorable member who is prepared to place himself in that position. It is in our actions that we have to give effect to great principles. We do not discharge our duty when we place a law upon the statute-book. We do not discharge our obligation to the people when, having given them a vote, we do something to deprive them of.it. Let honorable members make distinctions if they choose ; let them say in their electoral law - “ There shall be a distinction between the value of a country vote and that of a town vote,” but do not let us make a farce of the most vital principle of the Constitution. Do not let us profess to give votes to every man and woman in Australia, whilst simultaneously we erect political fences so that the men and women in one part of the Commonwealth cannot have an equal chance with those of another part in returning a representative to this Parliament. This is a vital matter. The only way in which the voters can exercise a voice in the. government of the country is by the share which they have in the return of members to represent them. If equality is not to be found in this choice, it is to be found nowhere. If we are to have this inequality, why do we not provide that a man who is possessed of profound learning and who has a large stake in the country shall have another vote ? Why not elevate him a little above the man in his employment - his groom or his gardener ? Bat we have discarded any such principle. We have deliberately given the most ignorant man in the country the same political power as the most enlightened, and for very good reasons. The most ignorant man in the country, who is perhaps possessed of the fewest interests, is more likely to give a disinterested vote than is the individual who is interested in it up to his eyes. However, the day for arguing that question has passed. The matter which is now under consideration is - “ Will this House do something which will have the effect of taking away from the people of the Commonwealth a right which they at present enjoy.” We cannot divest ourselves of responsibility in this matter. The Minister for Trade and Customs makes no’ secret about the matter. No honorable member can afterwards say - “ I thought that if I disapproved of this scheme it would be referred back to a non-political source, and that a new scheme would be placed before us.” The Minister has been perfectly frank in his statements. He has declared that it is a choice between these recommendations and the State electoral boundaries with the number of voters within those boundaries. Surely, if we intend to revert to a State Act, and to the State-determined boundaries, we cannot help remembering that we are deliberately choosing under womanhood suffrage the same set of boundaries that obtained before the adoption of that suffrage. Is that the position which this Parliament desires to take up before onehalf of the electors of Australia? In constitutional questions of government - whenever any serious disturbance is made in the franchise - the usual practice is to elect a Parliament upon the new basis. If ever there was an occasion when that principle should apply, it is when a larger number of “electors have been added to the Victorian rolls than were there previously. Formerly there were 300,00o electors upon the Victorian roll, but under our Federal franchise there are 600,000, of whom 300,000 are women. Surely if ever Parliament should discharge what is its inherent duty, it should do so now. AVe say that we must have a High Court, an Auditor-General, and an Acts Interpretation Act and yet we refuse to perform this great vital work of determining a new scheme of political distribution upon the basis of a new na-‘ tiona! franchise. That is a responsibility which honorable members may take ; but I think that if they do they will find it a very serious one. I have spoken my mind with perfect frankness, and no one can say that I have not put the position of affairs to this House as fully as I can. If the Minister proposed to refer this distribution back, it . would be infinitely more reconcilable with our duty than is the proposal of disapproval coupled with a statement which means that if we carry the motion we shall leave the electors at the mercy of a set of boundaries established by a State authority before the creation of the Commonwealth and before women were admitted to the franchise of Australia. There is one other point to which I desire to refer. I doubt seriously whether, if this course were followed, a State like NewSouthWales or Victoria would allow such an injustice to be perpetrated. They have only to repeal the State Act and our basis has gone. The Minister for Trade and Customs may laugh. No doubt he is a great lawyer, But we know from his views on the franchise question that he is a bush one. Other honorable members, at all events, will not regard this point as a small one.. There is no provision that the laws of the States shall remain in force after we have legislated upon an electoral subject.

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– It is also open to the States Parliaments to amend their electoral laws.

Mr REID:

– Exactly. Surely no one <jan deny the right of a State to amend its electoral laws. If we leave this matter to the States it will be within the power of a State Parliament to repeal its local Act, and we shall then have no provision for delimiting the electoral boundaries. The words of the Constitution -

– Certainly not.

Mr Isaacs:

– We are exercising our own discretion in disapproving of the Commissioner’s scheme o£ distribution.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– Yes. We cannot be forced to approve of the Commissioner’s distribution, and I hope that before we get rid of the existing electoral divisions we shall have an opportunity to deal; calmly and judicially, with a new scheme of distribution based on proper information.

M r.F. E. McLean. - Does the honorable and learned member say that section 108 of the Constitution prevents the Parliaments of the States from repealing or altering their laws?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

Mr Mauger:

– He has not gone back upon that statement.

Mr THOMSON:

– He has gone back upon the Bill, and consequently upon the principle of equal representation. He continued -

If the number of electors exceed 1,000 more or less, the reason for not adhering to the quota must be stated.

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– Does that mean that there is to be an equal population in town and country electorates ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– Yes.

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– Then the Government will never carry it ; they will have a lively time.

That prophecy was one of many which did not come true. Perhaps the Ministry experienced a “ lively time,” but they carried the Bill. The Minister emphatically declared that there would be equal representation as between town and country. Now, however, it is not proposed that there shall not be any such equal representation. Surely it is a serious thing for this Parliament to admit - as it will do if it carries the Ministerial proposal - that, whilst it desired that the forthcoming elections should be conducted under an Electoral Act of its own, and whilst it wished to take out of the hands of the States Legislatures a power which was given to them temporarily by the Constitution, it is in this matter an absolutely incapable Parliament, led by an incapable Ministry ! Surely it will be a confession of incapacity if we leave the electoral law controlling the next elections in the hands of the States !

Mr Isaacs:

– We leave a great many laws in the hands of the States.

Mr THOMSON:

– Not when we have once taken over and dealt with the matters to which they relate.

Mr Bamford:

– Which does the honorable member prefer - the State or an official ?

Mr THOMSON:

– The position is that we are not merely asked to go back upon the decision of an official. If that were so, we should return his work to him for correction. That is the course which is proposed in the Electoral Act. But it is now suggested that we should abandon that Act by declaring, either that it is a bad one - in which case we should revoke it - or that we are unable to carry out its provisions. That is a humiliating position to occupy. We shall have to elect a new Parliament under the States laws.

Sir William Lyne:

– No.

Mr THOMSON:

– The Minister proposes to do so.

Sir William Lyne:

South Wales, on the contrary, no such principle has been recognised, and doubtless it is owing to that fact that honorable members from that State come to cross purposes with us. Before we introduce so fundamental a change as this in our electoral system we should make sure that we are adopting an accurate basis. If we do not work on an accurate basis, we shall simply give rise to even greater anomalies than existed under the old law. Many men who clamoured for equal representation would find when the new rolls were prepared under this scheme that they exhibited greater anomalies than were to be found in the old ones. We must remember that once we accept a change of this kind we shall not readily be able to depart from it. Once an electorate has lost its individuality it may never regain separate representation. Is the adjustment of boundaries to be always at the whim of an official? It seems to me somewhat extraordinary that some honorable members should be so ready and eager to place this House absolutely under the heel of one of its own officials. If we intended to be guided simply by the Commissioner, why did we insert a provision in the Electoral Bill that the distribution made by him should be submitted to us? Was it not intended that the House should be the final arbiter? Is the House to be ruled by one of its own servants? Is it not to do what it believes to be right, independently of what any official may conceive to be his duty? The Commissioner looks at the Act and says - “ I cannot take the drought into consideration ; I must be guided simply by the law.” And, having made his distribution, he hands over his scheme to the House so that we may do what we think fit with it. We should assert and maintain our supremacy as against any mere official. I wish to deal briefly with the mode in which the electoral census was collected. It was taken under a system entirely new to Victoria. In New South Wales it has been the custom for many years to allow the police to collect the electoral census, and the men are, therefore, familiar with the work. When they were called upon to perform this service for the Commonwealth, they recognised that it was part of their duty, and they accepted it as such. But in Victoria the work was entirely new to the police, and they scarcely knew how to proceed with it. I know, from my own personal experience and from conversations which I had with the police, that they hardly knew how to go about the work. In a great many cases, no doubt, it was a distasteful duty, and the police were not very particular in their performance of it. Doubtless many of them carried out the work perfunctorily, and one cannot express much surprise, for it seems to be the fashion nowadays to hand over every new governmental duty to the police. I will give honorable members an instance. A complaint was sent to me from the eastern portion of my district, where the drought was not so bad, that several names had been omitted from the rolls. I sent it on to the Electoral Department, and obtained the following reply : -

With reference to Mr. H. Russell’s communication to you of the 8th June, indorsed by you, in which that gentleman states that no one had called round the district to collect the names of females, I have to informyou that MountedConstable S. H. Marshall, who was intrusted with the duty, called at the house of Mr. Russell, but, not finding any one at home, he received Mr. Russell’s name from a neighbour, and was advised that a number of females had objected to their names or information being afforded to the police for the purpose of enrolment.

– What I have said has not been said in any party spirit, nor to secure party interests ; but I hope that, for the securing of the proper representation of the country, the distribution of the electoral division of Victoria will be left over until the seasons again become normal, and we can proceed upon an accurate basis.

Mr SKENE:
Grampians

– After the very fair way in which the honorable member for Gippsland opened the case for the representatives of the country districts of Victoria, it is a pity that the issue has been clouded by the introduction of irrelevant matter. The leader of the Opposition would have given us an excellent speech if he had been merely advocating a system of equal electorates ; but his remarks contained a covert threat to those who might not fall in with his views. The question, with which he dealt was thoroughly thrashed out when the Electoral Bill was before us. One of the conditions which was introduced into that measure by the honorable and learned member for Corinella was that existing boundaries of divisions should be taken into consideration by the Commissioners in the demarcation of new divisions. But can that direction of Parliament be considered to have been carried out in the case of Victoria, in view of the fact that one of the existingdivisionsisomitted from theproposed distribution ? Considerable objection has been taken to the proposed distribution, on the ground that the recent drought considerably affected the location of population, but I think that even more objection is to be taken to it because of the way in which the electoral rolls have been compiled by the police. I, like other honorable members, know how greatly the drought has affected the population of the country districts of Victoria, and especially of the districts in the northern part of the State; but I also know that the work of collecting the rolls was most inefficiently performed. I do not blame the police, because they had an almost impossible task. Besides, any one who knows what it is to ride long distances in the country, perhaps on a tired horse, seeking the names of persons living in one little settlement and another here and there, know how apt a policeman would be to shirk the duty, and to take other methods of arriving at the names of those residing in the district. I believe that many names were obtained by the police by attending sales and small race meetings. I know that my own name was not collected, nor were those of some of the members of my family. Altogether, the system adopted has been a bad one, and I think that the Minister would have done better to take the census returns, making a fair estimate of the arrivals and departures’, and divide the State accordingly. The leader of the Opposition spoke about the difference between the town and country electorates. According to the police returns, the average difference is 4,441; but if the census returns had been adopted it would have been only 2,717. I do not think, however, that 4,441 is a very large difference, if the conditions of the country districts are taken into consideration. Moreover, if the census returns had been taken, the additional number of country electors would have been 25,860, which would have been enough to make up another division. In my opinion, had the census returns been taken, the present arrangement of divisions would not have been much altered. The right honorable member also made a strong point of the difference caused by the introduction of the adult franchise, and he quoted figures to show the number of women enfranchised in certain town and country electorates. It is, of course, impossible to arrive at accurate figures in connexion with any of these matters, and I do not think there has been much accuracy in the statements which have been made during the discussion ; but, assuming that there has not been much alteration in the character of the population, whereas in my electorate there were formerly 10,200 electors, there will now be 21,441 electors, showing that 11,241 women have been added. I have, on more than one occasion in this chamber, pressed upon the Minister the desirability of collecting the names of the electors who are missing. ‘I believe that most of them are in the country districts, and have been overlooked by the police. But if the rolls are to be compiled again, the work will take a long time to do thoroughly, and it would be impossible to get it done before the end of the year. I wish now to make one or two remarks in regard to the existing boundaries of the divisions. Like the honorable member for Gippsland, I have no reason to complain of the alterations which have been made. He says that the place where he went to school has been included in his electorate, and the place where I was born has been included in mine. But it appears to me that the Commissioner has not grasped the position so far as the boundaries of the divisions in the western district are concerned. The Grampian mountains have hitherto divided the electorate of the Wannon from the electorate of the Grampians, though they do not really count for much as a division. What really separates one place from another is want Of means of communication. Under the proposed distribution, however, the division of the Grampians has been run right up to the neighbourhood of Ararat, while the boundary of Wannon commences between Ararat and Dunkeld. If, instead of taking the Grampians as the line of boundary, some of the parish boundaries to the east of the railway line were adopted, the representative of the Wannon electorate would be able to travel through his own electorate on his way west. If, however, this portion of the Grampians electorate were included in Corangamite, a round-about railway journey would be necessitated to reach it. I see there are three parishes, Cooramook, Framlingham West, and Purnim, which jut right into the Wannon electorate, and that seems to me to be a mistake. If the means of communication, and the facilities offered to members for travelling through their districts had been considered, the boundaries would have been very differently arranged. Originally Talbot, and a portion of the country around, was included in the Grampians electorate. A petition was sent in to the Commissioner in favour of having’ that portion excised from the Grampians electorate and included in Laanecoorie, but a meeting held at Rupanyup asked that it should still be retained in the Grampians electorate. That portion of my electorate has, however, also been included in the Wannon electorate. The result of the subdivision is to give the honorable member for Wannon 3,000 more votes than I have, whilst the number of electors in the Laanecoorie electorate has been increased to 25,000. Originally there were 24,000 electors in the Grampians electorate, and 23,000 in Laanecoorie. Now the number, of electors in the Grampians division has been reduced to 21,000, whilst those in the Wannon district have been increased to 24,000. I am making no complaint, and the objections which I have mentioned would not be regarded by me as obstacles in the way of the adoption of the Commissioner’s recommendation ; but, in view of action that may be taken in the future, I think it well to make known the information which I have submitted to the House. I believe that, in order to do justice to Victoria, either the distribution of the electorates should be left over till some future time, when we have returned to normal conditions, or some effort should be made to subdivide the State upon a fairer basis as regards population. I understand that there are 32,000 country electors and 5,000 town electors whose names have been missed. . If these had been placed upon the roll, the additional electors which would have been given to the country districts would have increased the net difference between the number of electors in the towns and those in the country by 26,000. I shall support the proposal of the Government.

Mr ISAACS:
Indi

– In dealing with this question, I think it ought to be clearly understood that if. the House reject the distribution proposals, it will cast no reflection whatever upon the Commissioner, or upon the officials who have assisted him in collecting information. No doubt the Commissioner and the various officers engaged did the best they could, because the circumstances were so unfavorable, and so unusual that this House is now called upon to say that it will not adopt for three years the results of these unusual circumstances. It has been said that, if we assent to the Government proposal, we shall abandon the Electoral Act. I think that statement must have been made with some degree of thoughtlessness, because, if we look at the Electoral Act, we shall find that it is divided into seventeen parts. Exclusive of the first part, there are sixteen others dealing with administration, electoral divisions, polling places, electoral rolls, voting by post, electoral offences, and other matters, all of which we propose to utilize, excepting the one consisting of twelve sections relating to electoral divisions. So that the House would by no means throw itself upon the old State electoral law. It is proposed to adhere to and make use of nine-tenths of the Electoral Act, and we are now exercising that very reserve power that was given to us under the Act, to meet unforeseen emergencies. That is the whole position. When the Electoral Bill was before us, the House adopted a course which a number of us thought might lead to difficulties. We considered that the distribution of the States into electoral divisions might have been left to the judgment and discretion of honorable members with a full knowledge of all the circumstances. But it was thought better to intrust to an officer in the first instance the duty of preparing for the consideration of the House the proposed distribution. Certain directions were given to the Commissioner, and I have no doubt that these have, as far as possible, been most faithfully observed; but it now remains for us, under section 21 of the Act, to say whether the Houses of Parliament can agree to adopt the distribution he has suggested. That is a very simple question. So far.from abandoning the Act we are exercising the powers given to us by the Act, and I cannot understand how the Minister can be fairly charged with doing anything to contravene the principles of the Act, or anything inconsistent with the attitude he assumed when the Bill was going through Parliament. The whole matter comes down to a question of fact. If honorable members will look carefully at the report furnished by the Commissioner, they will see that he almost absolutely admitsthe justice of the position taken up by the Government to-night. He points out that he has had various objections sent to him in relation to the reduction of the country divisions to fourteen. The first three of these objections are stated as follows : -

That the statistics as to the number of elec tors residing in the country are unreliable.
That, owing to the drought, numbers of electors from country districts have moved - probably only temporarily - to the metropolitan centres.
That a very large proportion of persons entitled who have been accidentally omitted from the returns are country residents, and that the number so omitted is almost great enough to form a quota for a division.

What is his answer? I am not dealing with the other objections to which he furnishes a clear and satisfactory answer, but, with regard to these which go to the very root of the matter, this is his answer-

That I must be guided by, and can act only on, the official number of electors furnished by the Department of Home Affairs.

In other words, he inferentially says - However convinced I may be that the objections are well founded ; however satisfied I may be from my own knowledge gathered as a citizen of this country, and from the evidence brought before me by those who are directing my attention to these objections, I am utterly unable as a Commissioner to take any notice of that information. However much I should like to do so, or however necessary it may be to pay attention to it, I must confine my attention to the information officially forwarded to me, and which as an individual I may be thoroughly satisfied is unreliable.

– So far every representative of Victoria who has addressed the House upon this subject has favoured the proposal of the Government to disapprove of the boundaries recommended by the Commissioner. Whilst they all agree that Mr. Morrison is a very capable officer, and whilst they attach no blame to those who were charged with the duty of collecting the electoral returns, there is a unanimity amongst them in rejecting the scheme submitted. I venture to say, however, that the Commissioner has done good work, and that no scheme, produced would suit some of the honorable members of this House. Some honorable members have contended that, under the scheme submitted by him, the country districts have been unfairly treated ; and have read the first three replies given by the Commissioner to the objections sent to him, but none of them have proceeded to the fourth reply, where the Commissioner himself declares -

I ha’e taken advantage largely of the margin of allowance, and that if the margin of allowance had been departed from to the full extent of one-fifth less than the quota for the country divisions, the number of electors remaining in the city would have been such that with eight divisions only in the city, the one-fifth margin of allowance above the quota would have been exceeded.

Had the Commissioner kept to the margin of allowance to the full extent allowed, I venture to say that the electoral boundaries suggested would have required rearrangement within a period of three years. I might instance the electorate of Jika in this connexion. Settlement in that district is increasing very rapidly, chiefly owing to the construction of a new railway, and I am positive that before another election could take place the residents there would exceed the quota, and another redistribution would have to take place. Mr. Morrison adds -

There are 253,709 electors in the city “area as proposed ; and if eight divisions were provided, the average number of electors in each would be 31,713, or an average of 1,133 above the maximum margin of allowance under the law.

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– The House is engaged in discussing one of the most important subjects that could engage the attention of Parliament. I think we should divest the debate of all party feeling, and . view the matter as one affecting the observance of the spirit of the Constitution and of the Electoral Act. The Minister appears before us in a very extraordinary character. He was the author of the Electoral Act, which imposes a solemn responsibility upon the Electoral Commissioner. The Minister appointed the Commissioner to undertake these responsibilities, and now calmly asks us to set aside the work that has been done upon his statement, unsupported by any evidence, that there has been a great movement of population from the country to the metropolis.

Sir William Lyne:

– My statement was strongly supported by figures.

Mr.F. E. McLEAN.- The honorable member did not quote any figures whatever to show that there had been any great transfer of population from the country to the city.

Sir William Lyne:

Mr.F. E. McLEAN. - Not at all. We laid down the principle that community of interest should be taken into consideration in the distribution of electorates, and knowing that it is not always possible to keep these interests in view and at the same time to divide the country into areas equal in population, the Commissioner had to be allowed to exercise some discretionary power. The Electoral Commissioner himself, in his report, states that this discretionary power has been exercised in the interests of the country electors. On the first page of his report he says -

In view of the fact that the quota of electors is to be the basis of distribution, the area comprised in the existing country divisions would be entitled, strictly speaking, to about 123/4 members, and, the city to about10¼ members. As, however, section16 of the Act referred to grants a discretionary power to depart to the extent of one-fifth more or one-fifth less than the quota, and having in view the recognised interests as between country and city, and that many electors in drought-stricken areas were temporarily residing in the city, I deemed it prudent to exercise that power to a very large extent.

The Electoral Commissioner himself says that he has given every consideration to the loss of population by the country districts owing to the drought, and has availed himself of the discretionary power allowed to him. But what is the demand that has been set up by honorable members who wish to give a greater voting power to country electors ? It is that there have been thousands and tens of thousands - I should not have been surprised if it had been said hundreds of thousands - of electors who have left the drought-stricken areas and congregated in the cities. Does any honorable member seriously believe that there are tens of thousands who had left the country and were residing in Melbourne and suburbs at the time the Commissioner was doing his work ?

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– A great number were travelling with stock in the southern districts.

Mr.F. E. McLEAN. - A considerable number of people are always travelling in the country, whether in times of drought or in times of plenty. The provision of which the Commissioner says he has availed himself liberally, covers all the requirements that have been insisted upon during the course of the debate. Yet we are asked solemnly to set aside all the work that the Commissioner has done, and to perpetuate the anomalies that exist under the present scheme of distribution.

Mr Page:

– Why was that clause, giving; power to Parliament to ratify the distribution, put in the Act if it is useless ?

Mr.F. E. McLEAN. - It was wise and proper to provide that the final power should rest with Parliament.

Mr Page:

– But the honorable member’s argument means that the power should not be there.

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– The honorable member has not grasped what I intended to convey. I contend that as a matter of policy the Government, unless they can show that the work of the Commissioner has been badly done, and that he has not performed his work faithfully and well, are honorably bound to stand by his work.

Mr Page:

– The honorable member will not give them “ a show “ to do that.

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– They do not want “ a show “ to do it. They want “ a show” to depart from the work of the Commissioner. I fully recognise that the final power must rest with Parliament of rejecting or adopting the scheme. I do not find fault with the Government for bringing it before Parliament. What I object to is the attitude of the Government in repudiating the work of their own hand. The Government cannot escape from their responsibility for what the Commissioner has done. If the House likes to reject the work, it is open to them to do so, after full consideration, and on the ground of public policy. But the Government are bound to stand by the work of their Commissioner. Why did they introduce a Bill prescribing that this method of redistributing seats should be free from political control and should be performed by an impartial officer without interference from Members of Parliament, or members of the Government, unless they intended to abide by the work when it was done 1 What is the object of appointing a high-minded public official to do this work impartially unless his work is to be accepted when it is done 1 I cannot divine the object which the Government have in view. The leader of the Opposition has said that he declines to impart anything like a party tone into the discussion ; but when the Government appoint a public official to perform work laid down in an Act of Parliament, unless they can show reasonable grounds for the supposition that he has departed from his instructions and muddled his work, or has been proved to he incompetent, they have no right to depart from his recommendations. Otherwise to do so amounts to” political interference with the distribution of the electoral power of the Commonwealth. I do not pretend for one moment to say that one set of divisions would be more advantageous to the Government as a Government than any other distribution ; but the Government have no right to bring political influence to bear in this matter. The plain duty of the Government was to bring down a motion approving of the work -of the Commissioner.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– Even if it were bacl?

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– The Government do not think the work is bad, and they cannot think so, unless they wish to cast a stigma on their officer, We are told that the statistics and information furnished to the officer were all wrong; but if that be so, the responsibility rests with the Department for Home Affairs, from which the information was supplied. Any re- flection on the Commissioner must only “come home” to the Government them.selves, because they are responsible for the data on which he framed his report. I have never before known a Ministry come down with a motion to set aside the work of their own hands. The whole of the pro- visions under which that work was done are contained in an Act introduced by the Government themselves, and surely they ought to see that those provisions are carried out. The only good reason they can give for not approving of the suggested distribution is that they wish the next election to take place under the old arrangements, with no alteration of existing boundaries. I can quite understand that most of us would be a great deal better pleased to let the electorates, remain as they are. Honorable members, having won their seats on the present electoral distribution, have no anxiety to disturb the conditions ; and it would be the easiest thing in the world to let the proposed distribution fall through, and have the next elections under the old arrangement. Is that the way in which the Commonwealth Parliament are. to be asked by the guardians of the Constitution to do its work 1 The most remarkable thing in the discussion is that it is the guardian angels of the Constitution - honorable members who have always posed as high constitutional authorities and exponents of federalism - who ask us to put on one side our own electoral arrangements, and fall back on the mere makeshift that was supplied by the States Parliaments, in order te carry out the first Federal elections. One of the first duties of the Federal Parliament, in its legislative capacity, was to provide machinery for carrying out the next elections. We knew perfectly well that the arrangements made by the States were only temporary - that they were only a makeshift at the very best - and yet it ‘ is proposed . to perpetuate those arrangements with all the incidental anomalies. If there had been no female franchise introduced, there were such anomalies in the various electorates that a redistribution was imperative; but, by reason of the enormous increase of voting power in some of the States, by reason of the extension of the franchise to women, a redistribution has become doubly imperative. Now we are met by a request from the first Federal Government in Australia, who should have been most loyal to the Constitution, and the first to carry out their own Acts, to repudiate our own work and fall back on temporary and unsatisfactory arrangements with all their anomalies and inequalities. The whole position is degrading to Parliament ;’ and it is not to be wondered at that the people of the Commonwealth are gradually losing faith in parliamentary institutions. Such an attitude on the part of the people is not to be wondered at when they see the way in which great principles are trifled with, and the way in which laws made by this Parliament itself are ruthlessly set aside and trampled on by the Government of the day. We passed an electoral law, and provided for the distribution of the various States into electoral areas. Under the authority of that law we commissioned certain officers to map out those areas ; and yet the Government of the day, who are responsible for the legislation, and are responsible for the work of the Commissioner, now seek to set it aside. What sort of responsible government is it when we have Ministers repudiating the work of their own high officers who have only literally carried out the mandate of an Act of Parliament ? Is that not trifling with the legislation we have passed ? It is most unfortunate that the affairs of this Commonwealth should be in. the hands of a Government who have so little regard for the principles of the Constitution and of the Acts they have themselves induced Parliament to pass. There will be an election probably within very few weeks or months, and, after an existence of two years and a half, we have to confess that we are not in a position to go to the country under our own Electoral Act, and with electoral boundaries established by ourselves. As the Minister admitted this afternoon he will have to come to Parliament in order to have the electoral boundaries fixed by the States Governments made legal, while time which might have been profitably occupied in dividing the States has been wasted. I trust the House will reject the motion submitted by the Government. I do not know whether the honorable member for Yarra was speaking with authority when he said he thought the motion was certain to be carried, and that it was almost useless to speak in opposition to it. I hope that honorable members who assisted to pass the Electoral Act will regard it as their duty to see that its provisions are carried out, and that the work of the Commissioner is not set on one side. I know that it is quite open to Parliament in its judgment to reject the scheme, but it is unfortunate and humiliating that we should be asked to do so by the Government at whose instance we passed the Electoral Act and appointed the Commissioner whose work they now seek to destroy.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson

– It will come as a great surprise to the admirers of the Minister for Trade and Customs to find that he is not going to stand by his officers. If there is one thing for which the Minister is given credit more than another, it is standing by his officers who carry out instructions. The honorable gentleman introduced a Bill which was passed, and in which certain instructions were given to a Commissioner appointed by himself. When the result of the Commissioner’s work is laid before Parliament, although the Minister has the opportunity of returning the report with further definite instructions from this Parliament, he takes the opposite course of asking us to reject the scheme of this capable officer. The arguments which have been brought forward repeatedly in favour of the rejection of the proposed distribution are quite consistent with the arguments used when the Electoral Bill was before the House some time ago. The honorable member for Gippsland is quite consistent. Upon that occasion he made a vigorous and telling speech from his point of view in favour of giving greater representation to the country than to the metropolitan districts. To-day he has practically repeated his arguments. The honorable and learned member for Indi, in reply to a question as to whether he thought it would be wise to make a redistribution of the electoral boundaries within a period of two years should some migratory change occur in the population, declared that it would depend entirely upon circumstances. The Minister for Trade arid Customs says that, owing to the prevalence of drought conditions, population has drifted from the country into the large centres. But I have before me a list of districts in Victoria which were not affected by drought. They include the electorates of Corangamite, Corio,Flinders, and Wannon. Some of the largest districts in this State were not affected by the recent drought. . We are told that population has drifted to the city. That, to some extent, however, is no new thing. Months ago, before the drought was so acute in Victoria as it subsequently became, Senator Pulsford adduced figures to show that in the cities of this State there would be a larger aggregation of women than there would be in the country. If one travels through the rural districts, he will find that the domestic servants employed in’ the city are to a large extent recruited from those districts. Therefore, it is only natural that in the large centres the women will predominate. As we believe in the principle of equal representation, I hold that under this redistribution scheme one vote should represent one value. Those who profess to be strong democrats, and who to-day pose as champions of women’s rights, cannot do better than see that the other sex. are adequately represented, and that the same value attaches to their votes that attaches to those of men. Of late years’ the Minister for Trade and Customs has become the idol of a large and influential body in New South Wales known as the Women’s Progressive Association. I am glad to say that in common with him I enjoy the confidence of that association, and am the accredited representative of that body, a fact which goes to prove that it is not a protectionist organization. If the Minister wishes to do justice to those women, he should refer this scheme back to the Commissioner with instructions to revise it, and return it to Parliament at the earliest possible date.. It seems to me that Mr. Morrison has done his work extremely well. The electorates, as shown on the map, are most compact. Since he has discharged his duty so faithfully, it would be wrong to reject his scheme. ‘ 1 regret that an impression is entertained by some honorable members that the work of this Parliament relating to the distribution of seats should be done by the States Legislatures. To my mind, it is our duty to see that the scheme of redistribution is effected according to Federal ideas. A little time ago some representatives of Victoria laid special emphasis upon the fact that Federal officers had not been employed to do certain work for the Commonwealth. I agreed with those honorable members, and now hold that our own officers should be intrusted with this work. I appeal to honorable members not to lightly reject the work of our own officials, and adopt that of the States Parliaments, which is admittedly imperfect, and is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act that we have passed.

Mr McCAY:
Corinella

– I desire to point out to the honorable member who has just resumed his seat that he has fallen into the same error as the leader of the Opposition, in assuming either that in the existing electorates in Victoria and New South Wales, or in the proposed subdivision, an attempt has been made to differentiate between male and female electors. I find it difficult to follow the reasons which have been advanced for the purpose of showing that the existing electorates or the proposed districts in either Victoria or new South Wales will be affected by the sex of the voters in those constituencies. I desire to say a word or two in reference to some statements which were made by the honorable member for Lang at the time the Electoral Bill was under consideration. The honorable member seems to have altered his view about the intention of the Act, because when these clauses were under consideration in their amended form, and the honorable member for Parramatta moved to omit as one of the considerations to guide the Commissioner “ the existing boundaries of divisions,” the honorable member for Lang said -

I hope the amendment will not be pressed. It appears to me that the quota and the margin are ample safeguards against any great inequalities of misrepresentation.

Later on the honorable’ member said -

We are laying down a safe principle - that as far as possible existing electorates shall not be disturbed unless to comply with the conditions of the law.

That is what I understood was one of the objects Parliament had in passing the Bill in the form in which it actually became law.

Sir William Lyne:

– What honorable member said that?

Mr McCAY:

– The honorable member for Lang, Mr. F. E. McLean. If honorable members will look at the map of either Victoria or New South Wales they will find an immense number of alterations of existing electorates, which are by no means necessary if we desire only to so alter them as to comply with the conditions of the law. Consequently, so far as that is concerned, the honorable member for Lang appears to have taken up a new attitude now, as compared with the attitude which he took up last session.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– And this is the thanks which the honorable and learned member gives the honorable member for Lang for helping him at that time.

Mr McCAY:

– The honorable member for Lang is not helping me now. I have also looked at the discussion which took place on the Bill as introduced and as amended to its present form. I find that the honorable member for Gippsland moved to omit the words which declared that the quota should be adhered to as nearly as practicable. Those words were ultimately omitted, and the honorable member then pointed out that one vote one value did not mean one vote one equal fractional value of an electorate. I believe in one vote one value, but it is just because I know that one vote one value is not attained by absolutely equal electorates in city and country, utterly regardless of physical conditions, means of communication and scattered population, that I do not believe in an absolute equality of electors in city and country electorates. In speaking upon this matter, I said -

I think the Bill might be improver! by combining clauses 17 and IS.

Clauses 17 and 18 were combined, and are now to be found in section 16 of the Act. I explained that the result would be that it would be possible to give effect then to the principle that had obtained in Victoria of making, a difference between city and country electorates, grounded on the fact that they are city and country electorates. I said -

The Bill should show clearly that owing to the disadvantages under which country electors labour, it is intended that there should be a distinction between country and cib)’ electorates within the prescribed limits. As the clause stands, the Commissioners in each State might take a different view and split up the States on entirely different bases. This and the next clause should be combined. The words proposed to be omitted should be struck out, and clause 18 should be amended so as to indicate that the proportion of population to the area should be taken into consideration by the Commissioner.

– We are near enough to the end of the year to make it necessary, in order that everything may be placed in proper order for the elections, to have the electoral divisions promptly determined. Honorable members seem to forget all the arrangements which it is necessary to make after the electoral boundaries have been determined, in order to insure that every elector shall have a proper opportunity to record his vote.

An Honorable Member. - The necessary printing alone must take some time.

Mr McCAY:

– Honorable members are aware of the necessity of preparing the rolls, and of allowing every man an opportunity to have his name placed upon them after he has ascertained the electorate in which his district will be included. Looking at the practical side of the question I think it would be impossible to have this scheme returned to the Commissioner and finally dealt with before the next elections ; and, therefore, I am satisfied with the proposal that, instead of returning the distribution to the Commissioner, we should, fall back upon the existing electorates. If there, were really time–not theoretically but practically - to allow the alteration to be made, I should support the return of the distribution for reconsideration by the Commissioner, although I am afraid that little good would result from the adoption of that course. The Commissioner would have the same facts “before him that he had when preparing this distribution, and he would probably disregard those same facts. That would vitiate the value of his redistribution, and leave us in the position that we now occupy.

Mr CAMERON:
Tasmania

– I think that the Minister - and, through him, the Government as a whole - have behaved very badly in submitting this motion at the present time. They seem to have overlooked the fact that there are six States in the Commonwealth ; for in their present proposal no reference is made to the States of Western Australia and Tasmania.

Sir William Lyne:

– Will the honorable member pardon me 1 The time allowed for the preparation of the scheme of distribution in the States he has named has not yet expired, and I cannot deal with them until thuy have been laid upon the table.

– Cannot the honorable member defer what he has to say until the motion with regard to the New South Wales distribution is before the House 1

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– No; because- I wish to deal fully with the legal aspect of the case on the motion now under consideration. However, as honorable members do not feel disposed to accede to a reasonable request, I regret that I shall becalled upon-

Mr Phillips:

– To stone-wall.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– No, None of the speeches delivered to-night have indicated a desire on the part of honorablemembers to do anything of that kind. We wish to debate the matter fairly, but we have no wish to cause delay. The Minister, in the very short speech with which he thought it necessary to- move the motion, set out the reasons which actuated him in asking the House to disapprove of the proposed distribution of theCommissioner ; but it appeared to me that they afford no sound argument for doing what he suggests. To my mind, he wishesto consult the views of political supportersrather than to consider the interests of theCommonwealth. He told us that the Com. missioner had not considered the effectwhich the recent drought has had upon the- movements of the population of “Victoria, but I find, on referring to the report, that the Commissioner paid special attention to that matter. Moreover, as the honorable member for Robertson has pointed out, four of the largest of the country districts of Victoria did not suffer from the drought, so that whatever number of persons may have been compelled to leave them from other causes, those districts could not have lost population because of the drought. If we were acting in our own interests as a party we should allow the proposals of the Government to be adhered to, because they would probably prove to our advantage. We are not, however, swayed by any such considerations. We are acting in what we conceive to be. the public interest. I do not think that honorable members can argue for one moment that there was any drought in Victoriain 1901. Therefore, the census taken in that year should furnish us with some valuable information bearing upon the proportion of electors in the city and country constituencies. I find that in the eight city constituencies there were 271,000 male and female adults, exclusive of foreigners, lunatics, prisoners, and aboriginals. In the -fifteen country constituencies there were 353,000 adults.’ If we divide the number of adults in the city constituencies by eight, that being the number of electorates, we find that the average number of electors for each city constituency would amount to 33,875. Applying the same process to the country constituencies, the average works out at 23,533 electors for each division. That represents a difference of about 10,000 per -electorate between the city and country divisions. If the figures given in the census of 1901 are applied to the electoral divisions recommended by the Commissioner, and the divisors of nine and fourteen are adopted for the city and country electors respectively, the averages will work out at 30,100 electors per division in the city, and 25,200 electors per division in the country. Therefore, there would still be an advantage of about 5,000 electors per constituency in favour of the country electorates. I think that shows clearly that there is no justification whatever for the statement put forward by the Government. lt seems to me that Ministers are now breaking the promises which they made when the Electoral Bill was introduced. It has been suggested that, unless a redistribution of the electorates were made by this House, it would be within the power of the Victorian Parliament to pass a measure for the division of the State into electorates for the purposes of the Federal election. If such action were taken a great reflection would be cost upon this House. I feel strongly upon this matter, and I had intended to deal more fully with it; but, perhaps, it would be better to reserve any remarks I may have to make upon the important principle involved in the Government proposals when the distribution of electorates in Kew South Wales is under discussion. I believe that a great mistake is being made, and that the Government are rendering themselves liable to the suspicion that they are endeavouring to manipulate the electorates in order to suit their own party purposes.

Mr L E GROOM:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; IND from 1931; UAP from 1934

– No one has mode such a charge.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I am afraid that they arc exposing themselves to such an accusation, but I do not wish to deal with the matter from that stand-point. The Government are attempting to perpetrate a great WrOng upon the electors of the Commonwealth, and are altogether ignoring the interests of the female voters for whom they have previously expressed so much concern. I feel sure that the female voters will not view the matter in the same light as the Minister. They will see that he only professed, and recognising that there was a danger-

Sir William Lyne:

– Let the honorable member say all the nasty things he can when, the motion relating to New South Wales is before the House.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– 1 told my honorable friend just now that I did not rise for the purpose of prolonging the debate - and he knows that I am not often at a loss for words to express my views- -but for the purpose .of entering my strong protest against the attitude adopted by the Government with regard to the redistribution of the electorates. The position has been so well put by the leader of the Opposition that I feel sure that, when the people of the Commonwealth realize that the Parliament is interfering with their right to vote under the Electoral Act, they will say that it does not reflect any credit on the Government. I am very sorry that they are seeking to prevent a large number of electors from recording their votes.

Question put. The House divided.

AYES: 34

NOES: 9

Majority … … … 25

AYES

NOES

page 3604

ADJOURNMENT

Order of Business

Sir EDMUND BARTON:
HunterMinister for Externa] Affairs · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

It is intended to-morrow to take the motions relating to the electoral divisions, and, in the event of there being any spare time, to consider the amendments made by the Senate in the Judiciary and High Court Procedure Bills.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 13 August 1903, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1903/19030813_reps_1_15/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives13 August 1903

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL

Mr GLYNN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr DEAKIN:Attorney-General · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

KADINA POST-OFFICE

Mr PAGE:MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Sir PHILIP FYSH:Postmaster-General · TASMANIA, TASMANIA · Free Trade

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION ACT

Mr BAMFORD:HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Sir EDMUND BARTON:Minister for External Affairs · HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

AGENTS-GENERAL AND PREFERENTIAL TRADE

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir EDMUND BARTON:Protectionist

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir EDMUND BARTON:

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

PAPER

The Clerk:

QUESTION

SOUTH AFRICAN TRADE

Mr PHILLIPS:WIMMERA, VICTORIA

Sir EDMUND BARTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

REPORT OF GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING

Mr MAUGER:MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

Sir EDMUND BARTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

LETTER-CARRIERS’ OVERCOATS

Mr FOWLER:PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir PHILIP FYSH:Free Trade

ELECTORAL DIVISIONS : SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Minister for Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist

Mr REID:East Sydney

Mr Batchelor:

Mr REID:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr L E GROOM:DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; IND from 1931; UAP from 1934

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr Conroy:

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr L E GROOM:DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; IND from 1931; UAP from 1934

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr Reid:

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr Conroy:

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr Conroy:

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr Conroy:

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr Reid:

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr Reid:

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr Reid:

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr Poynton:

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr Henry Willis:

Mr BATCHELOR:

House of Representatives
13 August 1903

Mr GLYNN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Attorney-General · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Postmaster-General · TASMANIA, TASMANIA · Free Trade

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Sir EDMUND BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir EDMUND BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr PHILLIPS:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

Sir EDMUND BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr MAUGER:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

Sir EDMUND BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr FOWLER:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Free Trade

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist

Mr REID:
East Sydney

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr L E GROOM:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; IND from 1931; UAP from 1934

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr L E GROOM:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; IND from 1931; UAP from 1934

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr GLYNN:
South Australia

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr O’MALLEY:
Tasmania

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr KINGSTON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney